For, notwithstanding the alleged defect in the service on him of the summons, if he made a general appearance in the justice court, he will be bound by that appearance as having waived the informality of the summons. Pleas based upon lack of jurisdiction of the person are in their nature pleas in abatement and find no special favor in the law. They amount to no more than the declaration of the defendant that he has had actual notice, is actually in court in a proper action, but, for informality in the service of process, is not legally before the court. It is purely a dilatory plea, and when the defendant seeks to avail himself of it, he must, for very obvious reasons, stand upon his naked legal right and seek nothing further from the court than the enforcement of that right. He will not be heard to ask the court of anything further than the adjudication upon his plea, and if he does ask anything further, then, by logic of the fact, he must necessarily have waived the irregularity of the summons before the court. Here is one reason for the well-settled rule that if a defendant wishes to insist upon the objection that he is not in court for want of jurisdiction over his person, he must specially appear for that purpose only, and must keep out for all purposes except to make that objection. Another reason equally valid, is that if such defendant shall ask for any relief other than that addressed to his plea, he is seeking to gain an unconscionable advantage over his adversary, whereby, if the determination of the court be in his favor he must avail himself of it, while, if it be against him, he may fall back upon his plea of lack of jurisdiction over the person. So it is well settled that if a defendant, under such circumstances, raises any other question, or asks for relief which can only be granted upon the hypothesis that the court has jurisdiction of his person, his appearance is general, though termed special, and he thereby submits to the jurisdiction of the court as completely as if he had been regularly served with summons. (citations omitted) In the present case the defendant made his motion to quash service of summons. In this, his appearance was undoubtedly special, as he limited it solely to a request for specific relief. But he also demurred to the jurisdiction of the court over his person and over the subject matter of the action. In this case plainly a demurrer to the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over his person could not lie. If in any conceivable case it could lie, such a demurrer also would be treated as a special appearance. But here he went further and demurred to the jurisdiction of the court over the subject-matter of the action, a request for relief which the court could not grant him, saving upon the theory that he was regularly before the court. It was relief, moreover, independent and apart from his plea to the jurisdiction of the person, and, if successful, would have worked a dismissal of the action upon an entirely distinct legal ground. That in so demurring he waived the question of the jurisdiction of his person and submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court is abundantly settled. ( Code of Civ. Proc., sec. 1014; Zobel v Zobel, 151 Cal. 98 [90 Pac. 191] [Olcese v. Justice Court, 156 Cal. 82, 87-88 (1909)] # # #
Return to Table of Contents for
Olcese v. Justice Court